Environmental justice in conservation philanthropy: Do intermediary organizations help?

IF 4.4 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Jeffrey E. Blackwatters , Michele Betsill , Eugene Eperiam , Trina Leberer , Geraldine Rengiil , Elizabeth Terk , Rebecca L. Gruby
{"title":"Environmental justice in conservation philanthropy: Do intermediary organizations help?","authors":"Jeffrey E. Blackwatters ,&nbsp;Michele Betsill ,&nbsp;Eugene Eperiam ,&nbsp;Trina Leberer ,&nbsp;Geraldine Rengiil ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Terk ,&nbsp;Rebecca L. Gruby","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2024.100232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Many private philanthropic foundations are engaging intermediary organizations as a strategy to better integrate justice into their grantmaking. This study examines how intermediary organizations work in practice and how they can or cannot contribute to justice in conservation funding. We employed Q methodology and a knowledge co-production approach to examine grantees’ experiences of justice in their grantmaking relationship with a funding intermediary, the Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT). Using a collaborative process of knowledge creation and interpretation, we identified three distinct perspectives: 1. <em>Intermediaries bridge gaps in justice</em>; 2. <em>Intermediaries are helpful but constrained</em>; and 3. <em>Intermediaries cannot solve injustice in conservation</em> <em>funding</em>. Our findings indicate that while intermediaries can play a vital role in advancing justice in grant-making relationships, they are not a silver bullet for addressing injustices that are inherent to funding dynamics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100232"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth System Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589811624000326","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many private philanthropic foundations are engaging intermediary organizations as a strategy to better integrate justice into their grantmaking. This study examines how intermediary organizations work in practice and how they can or cannot contribute to justice in conservation funding. We employed Q methodology and a knowledge co-production approach to examine grantees’ experiences of justice in their grantmaking relationship with a funding intermediary, the Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT). Using a collaborative process of knowledge creation and interpretation, we identified three distinct perspectives: 1. Intermediaries bridge gaps in justice; 2. Intermediaries are helpful but constrained; and 3. Intermediaries cannot solve injustice in conservation funding. Our findings indicate that while intermediaries can play a vital role in advancing justice in grant-making relationships, they are not a silver bullet for addressing injustices that are inherent to funding dynamics.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
31
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信